Dawkins and a "bizarre twitter storm"

[Luís Henrique]

Dawkins at it again...

For your comments. Please be very logic and do not misunderstand this as having any connection to, er, opinions on rape or pedophilia.

Luís Henrique

[LiaSofia]

Lesson: if you're trying to give a basic tutorial in logic don't use pedophilia and rape examples.

Whatever happened to ''Socrates is a man''...?

[Sasha]

Richard Dawkins, what on earth happened to you?

Dawkins in 2014 is a man so convinced that he possesses God-like powers of omniscience that he can’t understand why everyone is angry at him for pointing out the obvious

Another day, another tweet from Richard Dawkins proving that if non-conscious material is given enough time, it is capable of evolving into an obstreperous crackpot who should have retired from public speech when he had the chance to bow out before embarrassing himself.
“Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse,” huffs Dawkins. Seeming to have anticipated, although not understood, the feminist reaction this kind of sentiment generally evokes, he finishes the tweet: “If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”
You can almost imagine him tweeting this, his fingers jabbing away at the keyboard as his glasses slide down a face contorted with disappointment at how irrational everyone is being. This is Dawkins in 2014: a figure of mockery, a man so convinced that he possesses God-like powers of omniscience that he can’t understand why everyone’s getting angry at him for pointing out the obvious. Why won’t we all just learn how to think, damn it! Then we could all live together in a peaceful society where nobody wears “bin liners”, and women shut up about sexual harassment.
Remember when Dawkins was widely respected? When his biggest detractor was late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould? I don’t. Having grown up after Dawkins made the transition from lauded science communicator to old man who shouts at clouds, it’s hard for me to understand why anyone continues to listen to him about anything.
Sure, he wrote some pop science books back in the day, but why do we keep having him on TV and in the newspapers? If it’s a biologist you’re after, or a science communicator, why not pick from the hundreds out there who don’t tweet five or six Islamophobic sentiments before getting off the toilet in the morning? If you need an atheist, there are many philosophers, scholars of religion, and public intellectuals available who don’t refuse to acknowledge the existence of theology.
Dawkins has been arrogant for years, a man so convinced of his intellectual superiority that he believes the one domain in which he happens to be an expert, science, is the only legitimate way of acquiring or assessing knowledge. All of his outbursts in recent years follow from this belief: he understands the scientific method, a process intended to mitigate the interference of human subjectivity in data collection, as a universally applicable way of understanding not just the physical world but literally everything else as well. Hence his constant complaint that those appalled by his bigoted vituperations are simply offended by clarity; feeble-minded obscurantists who cling to emotion, tradition or the supernatural to shield themselves from the power of his truth bombs.
You don’t have to be religious to find this level of hubris baffling. In his review of The God Delusion, Terry Eagleton remarks:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well.
To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts. His orientation toward the world is the product of a classic category mistake, but because he’s nestled inside it so snugly he perceives complex concepts outside of his understanding as meaningless dribble. If he can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist, and anyone trying to describe it to him is delusional and possibly dangerous.
All we can do at this point is hope his decline into hysterical dogmatism culminates in a reverse deathbed conversion. But if there’s one thing Dawkins has tried to impress upon us, it’s that miracles don’t exist. So I’ll do him the courtesy of not holding my breath.

source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-you?CMP=fb_gu

[LiaSofia]

Revleft is an atheist stronghold (which is fine) but I haven't met many atheists who are critical of Dawkins. It's quite a relief to see some negative opinions rather than people praising him just because he says bad things about religion.

[Dagoth Ur]

I always thought it was funny that the God Delusion had a shiny cover.

Dawkins is the face of modern anti-theism. Not a good sign.

[Hit The North]

Demonstrates the limitations of logic in understanding human affairs that are ruled by emotion and values. It is highly inappropriate to attempt to quantify the impact of one form of sexual abuse against another as if it exists independently of the affect on the victim.

Dawkins, as ever, struggles with empathy.

[helot]

Shall we all chip in for a jesters hat? He plays the fool really well.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

how much more evidence people need to know that he is a complete tosser? full on reactionary - saying things like that about peadophilia and rape just show how irrational his "logic" really is. there is no space for reactionary thought in scientific analysis and as such, dawkins is nothing more than a hack. i'm pretty sure i remember him being a scientist before he turned his attention to writing rants about religions, having them published as books and making a lot of money from them, thenceforth becoming a primary source for angsty teenage internet atheists.

[RA89]

Not a fan of Dawkins but I really don't get what the issue is here.

Demonstrates the limitations of logic in understanding human affairs that are ruled by emotion and values. It is highly inappropriate to attempt to quantify the impact of one form of sexual abuse against another as if it exists independently of the affect on the victim.

Dawkins, as ever, struggles with empathy.

You seem to be missing the point he is making though

I wasn’t even saying it is RIGHT to rank one kind of rape as worse than another (that caused an immense amount of agony and a scarcely creditable level of vitriolic abuse in the Twittosphere). You may be one of those who thinks all forms of rape are EQUALLY bad, and should not, in principle be ranked at all, ever. In that case my logical point won’t be relevant to you and you don’t need to take offence (although you might have trouble being a judge who is expected to give heavier sentences for worse versions of the same crime). All I was saying is that IF you are one of those who is prepared to say that one kind of rape is worse than another (whichever particular kinds those might be), this doesn’t imply that you approve of the less bad one. It is still bad. Just not AS bad.

He is not ranking the abuses, he is saying that if one were to rank the abuses then to do so would not endorse to the lower ranked ones.

I think "mild pedophilia" is a stupid way to word it, but if we have an instance of groping and an instance of rape it is not outrageous to say the rape is worse. And that would not excuse the groping either.
Hence why different crimes and have different sentences.

The rape example he gave was ridiculous as a hypothetical statement, but he clarifies that in the article posted in the OP- he acknowledges that date rape can be worse or equal to stranger rape. The point is that saying one is worse than the other does not excuse or endorse either.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I feel like he discredited himself years ago, it's always strange when another controversy around him pops up again, but I suppose that's twitter's primary function. That article Sasha posted is right though, his little band of partisans have definitely given him one hell of a messiah complex.

[Rafiq]

It is inarguable that Dawkin's drivel is wholly tied to an argument which started on the potency of relativism as far as opposing such phenomena - without a god, without consciousness as being responsible for the entirety of existence morality is "impossible". Dawkins responds by assuming some sort of weak form of relativism instead of explaining the ORIGINS of morality itself as having a social function - likewise the notion of a god itself having a social function.

New Atheism (as opposed to old atheism) can be characterized by its ideological weakness. They are correct in recognizing that there has been a reactionary revival in religious sentiments, which is anti-enlightenment based in nature - but without materialism there can be no true atheism, it's for that reason that even the most adamant of bourgeois revolutionaries could only ever be deists. By relying parasitically upon the universe of the ideological state apparatus, upon the hegemonic ideological order, New Atheism could only ever be a form of apologia - apologia for atheism itself.

It is not through logic and reason that we exist without a god no one can be beyond ideology, no one can solely think on the basis of "logic and reason", what is "logical" and what is not is a matter of 'debate' - indeed the gods of the old order will be replaced by the gods of the new - Communism derives legitimacy from the gods of the sciences, we are knighted - we are legitimized by the very same altars 'logic and reason' that sustain the existing order just as the bourgeois revolutionaries were knighted by the same holiness that sustained the previous one - the supreme being. We must mercilessly crush the foundations by which such a dichotomy between "faith" and "reason" is made, we must rip the veil that crowns religion and reduce it as a social product - by which the real domain of belief would then reside in the fields of class struggle itself. At that point we say rape is detestable because it re-asserts the barbarity of existing sexual relations and female sexual slavery, instead we say rape is bad because it serves the existing order and the class enemy, instead we say rape is bad because it is the rallying cry of all that which stands in the way of the emancipation of women.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I just wanted to say, as someone who has been pretty vocal in their hatred of Dawkins I think it's awesome and hilarious someone characterized him as a "senile old man shouting at clouds." That's literally how I've viewed him and others for years lmao

[LiaSofia]

I just wanted to say, as someone who has been pretty vocal in their hatred of Dawkins I think it's awesome and hilarious someone characterized him as a "senile old man shouting at clouds." That's literally how I've viewed him and others for years lmao

Yes, I liked that description. I once saw a great video on Youtube of Dawkins reading his hate mail from so-called loving Christians. One of them said 'I hope you get hit by a church van on your way home'. Now I don't want the guy to be mowed down and killed, but the image was pretty funny.

I think my problem is more to do with people's response to him than anything else. You know how some bands are less likeable because they're so hyped by all of the music critics? Well Dawkins is the science world's equivalent of an overrated indie band. I don't think he does atheism any favours.

[Diirez]

Society can't even handle situations of rape as it is, let alone ranking rape (which he admits the rape situations he put could be reversed depending on your situation) into which is worse.

I get his 'argument' on how x and y are both bad things but x can be worse than y. His examples are deeply controversial and horrifyingly inappropriate.

A better example for his argument would've been:
War is bad, but nuclear war is worse.

[Creative Destruction]

Revleft is an atheist stronghold (which is fine) but I haven't met many atheists who are critical of Dawkins. It's quite a relief to see some negative opinions rather than people praising him just because he says bad things about religion.

Dawkins is an incredibly shallow thinker, especially compared to some other better atheist thinkers like Daniel Dennett (who I'm iffy on, also, because, fuck atheists generally).

[Thirsty Crow]

Lesson: if you're trying to give a basic tutorial in logic don't use pedophilia and rape examples.

Whatever happened to ''Socrates is a man''...?

Yeah, precisely this.

I honestly can't seem to see any really problematic side to this apart from the unfortunate choice of examples (unfortunate in that they lend themselves easily too misunderstanding of the intention behind the analogy and the fact that survivors might experience this as careless). The point actually stands and Richie is absolutely correct.

The point which Diirez is making is in light of what I said above horribly misguided:

A better example for his argument would've been:
War is bad, but nuclear war is worse.

You think society can handle instances of war? Mass murder and mutilation? Somehow this seems a more appropriate example? I wonder what planet you're living on. Maybe some folks would legitimately want to object to that. Maybe a person not living in USA and who's had fighter jets flying over their heads - at the very least.

Which brings me to the larger point. The rhetorical character of arguing his point was seemingly so constructed from the very start that he needed examples of almost universally abhorred actions, with further distinction between even more horrid situations and the initial assumed one.

Now you can argue with that, the rhetorical strategy. Anything else is entirely misplaced.

[Orange Juche]

I'dve said drinking piss is bad but eating shit is worse.

[Sasha]

What's the difference between Richard Dawkins and a televangelist? Dawkins charges more

It’s like a church without the good bits. Membership starts from $85 a month
171 Comments Andrew Brown 16 August 2014



Listen

Andrew Brown and Daniel Trilling discuss the cult of Richard Dawkins





The other day I wrote something to upset the followers of Richard Dawkins and one of them tracked me down to a pub. I had been asked to give a talk to a group of ‘Skeptics in the Pub’ about whether there are any atheist babies — clearly not, in any interesting sense — and at the end a bearded bloke, bulging in a white T-shirt, asked very angrily where Dawkins had said there were any. I quoted a couple of his recent tweets on the subject:
When you say X is the fastest growing religion, all you mean is that X people have babies at the fastest rate. But babies have no religion.
How dare you force your dopey unsubstantiated superstitions on innocent children too young to resist? How DARE you?
These seemed to me to suggest quite strongly that Dawkins believes that babies are born atheists. But my heckler wanted scripture. ‘Where does he say this?’ he asked. ‘I’ve got his book, here!’ and he pointed to his bag. ‘Where does he say it? He doesn’t say it anywhere! You’re a liar!’
He reached into his bag and pulled out an iPhone, with a speaker already attached to it, and started to play a video clip in which, presumably, Richard Dawkins denied that he had ever claimed there were any atheist babies.
If this had happened even five years ago, the meeting would have been on the heckler’s side. In fact his performance was greeted by a general squirm. It’s difficult to remember the hosannas that greeted The God Delusion and the vote by Prospect’s readers that named Dawkins as Britain’s greatest public intellectual. Much of the atheist/humanist/secularist movement is now embarrassed by him, and repelled by the zeal of his cult of personality.
Richard Dawkins Photo: AFP/Getty





My man in the pub was at the very low end of what believers will do and pay for: the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak.
When you compare this to the going rate for other charismatic preachers, it does seem on the high side. The Pentecostal evangelist Morris Cerullo, for example, charges only $30 a month to become a member of ‘God’s Victorious Army’, which is bringing ‘healing and deliverance to the world’. And from Cerullo you get free DVDs, not just discounts.
But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’
The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended.
At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.
Last year he tweeted a recommendation of comments collected by one of his followers at a book signing in the US. Among them were: ‘You’ve changed the very way I understand reality. Thank you Professor’; ‘You’ve changed my life and my entire world. I cannot thank you enough’; ‘I owe you life. I am so grateful. Your books have helped me so much. Thank you’; ‘I am unbelievably grateful for all you’ve done for me. You helped me out of delusion’; ‘Thank you thank you thank you thank you Professor Dawkins. You saved my life’; and, bathetically, ‘I came all the way from Canada to see you tonight.’ With this kind of incense blown at him, it’s no wonder he is bewildered by criticism.
Like all scriptures, the Books of Dawkins contain numerous contradictions: in The God Delusion itself he moves within 15 pages from condemning a pope who had baptised children taken away from Jewish parents to commending Nick Humphrey’s suggestion that the children of creationists be taken away because teaching your children religion is comparable to child abuse. So believers can always find a scripture where he agrees with them, which naturally cancels out the one where he doesn’t.
Whether he means that religious believers are despicable ‘stumbling, droning inarticulate .. yammering fumblewits’ who are ‘likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt’ (that’s from a 2009 blogpost) or ‘I don’t despise religious people. I despise what they stand for’ (from a 2012 speech) can lead to arguments as interminable as those over the peaceful or otherwise character of the Prophet Mohammed.
Similarly, does he mean that genes are selfish, or that they are co-operative? Both, it seems, and with equal vehemence. As he wrote, ‘The Selfish Gene could equally have been called The Co-operative Gene without a word of the book itself needing to be changed.’ This doesn’t seem to me to be strictly speaking true: it subverts the sense of a famous passage to change it to read: ‘Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own co-operative genes are up to, because we may then have a chance to upset their design, something which no other species has ever aspired to.’
But what has got him in trouble with his own side is not biology of that sort, but the appearance of racism and sexism. Some of the stuff that he has written and retweeted about ‘evil’ Islam is shocking. A recent Dawkins tweet mentioning ‘mild paedophilia’ produced an eruption of outrage across the sceptical movement, not really helped by his claiming that it was all a matter of logic, and his opponents had had their thinking clouded by emotion — and the one thing everyone knows about Dawkins is that his followers are entirely rational.
Andrew Brown writes on religion for the Guardian.

source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/...chard-dawkins/

[Luís Henrique]

I'dve said drinking piss is bad but eating shit is worse.

And if you say this is an endorsement of drinking piss...

... then you are taking the piss, British way. [/bad joke]

Luís Henrique

[Mather]

Dawkins says that babies with Down Syndrome should be aborted:

LINK

So, besides being a misogynist and a racist prick who seems to enjoy belittling the experiences of those who suffered from child abuse, Dawkins is an advocate for eugenics. I can't say I'm surprised, given all the other nasty shit he has said over the years. New Atheists such as Dawkins and Sam Harris completely demolish Dawkins claim that atheists are more moral and ethical than religious people, from his recent statements we can see that for what it is, bullshit!

I'm really embarrassed to admit that I used to support him and the New Atheists, I hope I never make a mistake like that again.